Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2018 15:04:25 GMT -5
Just because something has repeatedly worked out badly in the past doesn't mean it's not an awesome idea this time! See also: tariffs.
Stove!
Ouch! Hot!
Stove!
Ouch! Hot!
Stove!
Ouch! Hot!
Just because all the generals and military experts and Middle East experts thinks this is a horrifying idea doesn't mean that an old five-time draft dodger who's lived in a faux-gold tower all his life and probably couldn't spot Syria on a map doesn't know better than they do!
Also, screw your doctor -- let Trump treat your cancer and design your healthy diet plan!
Pfft, what does your plumber know? Trump will tell you how to fix that leaky pipe!
We don't need no stinkin' scientists -- Trump's got climate change covered!
And of course, if you have a legal issue, no point listening to a lawyer! Trump knows best!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2018 18:55:03 GMT -5
Well, at least Putin is happy. And hey, it's safe to say "Merry Christmas" again!
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Dec 22, 2018 19:42:04 GMT -5
I hardly ever support the same things as Trump, but this is a case where I do.
I happen to believe the US presence in Syria was/is unconstitutional, and that getting out is required unless Congress gives authorization.
On top of that, you have another protracted conflict without clear, achievable objectives, in a country where we're not wanted, where the most emotive reason for staying (don't abandon the Kurds) created an absurdity where the US would be helping a group (the PKK) that was designated a terrorist organization by--wait for it, wait for it--the US government. (Not that the US was ever going to support a Kurdish state, which I would've been open to supporting.)
And you know, it's kind of amusing to me that Trump's ignorance of the Middle East could be cited as a reason for staying. Fact is, Trump is the commander in chief, so he's the one responsible for overseeing this whole thing. Bush and Obama, who at least tried listening to people who were supposed to know a lot about the Middle East, both got bogged down in protracted conflicts that ruined entire countries because of unintended consequences. But the guy who can't find Syria on the map is going to make sure the mission in Syria--whatever that happens to be at this point--goes smoothly? LOL.
|
|
|
Post by mikey on Dec 22, 2018 20:17:29 GMT -5
I for one, michaelw, do not think you are a Trump lover due to your stance on this one issue. Then again, I'm a nobody.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2018 20:48:25 GMT -5
I hardly ever support the same things as Trump, but this is a case where I do. I happen to believe the US presence in Syria was/is unconstitutional, and that getting out is required unless Congress gives authorization. On top of that, you have another protracted conflict without clear, achievable objectives, in a country where we're not wanted, where the most emotive reason for staying (don't abandon the Kurds) created an absurdity where the US would be helping a group (the PKK) that was designated a terrorist organization by--wait for it, wait for it--the US government. (Not that the US was ever going to support a Kurdish state, which I would've been open to supporting.) And you know, it's kind of amusing to me that Trump's ignorance of the Middle East could be cited as a reason for staying. Fact is, Trump is the commander in chief, so he's the one responsible for overseeing this whole thing. Bush and Obama, who at least tried listening to people who were supposed to know a lot about the Middle East, both got bogged down in protracted conflicts that ruined entire countries because of unintended consequences. But the guy who can't find Syria on the map is going to make sure the mission in Syria--whatever that happens to be at this point--goes smoothly? LOL. I don't disagree with you on the unconstitutionality of Trump going in there in the first place. I would be very happy to see the power withdrawn from Trump (from presidents in general, but especially Trump) to make such a strike. But that ship sailed quite a while ago with regard to Syria. The time to rebuke Trump and pull back was then. Nothing about his withdrawing the troops now would do a damn thing to prevent him from making a strike there or somewhere else tomorrow. The only thing that would stop that is Congress--and all of us, most especially his base--screaming and rebuking him when he tries to do it. And that's not happening (right now, at least). That's not why the troops are being withdrawn, to state the obvious. I am confident that you, MichaelW, objected to the strike when it occurred, so I shall not scold you for inconsistency on that front. (I wonder, Mikey, did you object to Trump diving in there in the first place? Doesn't seem Trump's base in general did...Republicans in Congress didn't.) If, going forward, Congress wants to pass something that makes it absolutely fucking crystal clear that only Congress can do this shit (yeah, I know the Constitution says it, but we've moved far from that, and yes, that started before Trump), I'm all for it. But. The fact is, we're there now. We are already pregnant. We have allies depending on us, we have Russia rubbing its hands gleefully, and the field is ripe for ISIS to surge again and cause even more mayhem, terror and destruction. We are way past the point where we can just walk away. When we abruptly withdraw troops without rhyme, reason, or a plan, without careful consideration for what happens in that wake, we sow the field for outsized disaster, both now and in the future. And when we abandon our allies to mayhem and disaster, they cease to trust us. (Especially here, where, damn, it sure as hell looks like he's doing Putin's will.) Having gone in the first place, we have a responsibility to see it through, or at the very least to wrap it up properly. If we don't, it won't just be the Kurds who pay the price. This will go badly. It will go very badly indeed. It's virtually guaranteed. ETA: And taking all that aside, you aren't actually kidding yourself that Trump is making this decision for carefully considered reasons, are you? He's not. It's impulse -- impulse that is oblivious to the situation on the ground and directly opposed to the opinions of his advisers who understand it (as he does not--I'm serious that I'd bet he couldn't find Syria on a map). We should not make decisions like this that way, ever. Even if I DID agree with this decision (and obviously, I think it's a fucking disaster, but whatever), I would have a problem with it for that reason. That is perhaps my single biggest problem with Trump -- that's the way he does pretty much everything. It took the constant combined work of Mattis, Kelly, McMaster and the other "grown-ups" to keep that tendency even remotely in check. Which is exactly why I'm so terrified and upset that all of them are gone. (And hey, I had my problems with each of them, especially Kelly -- don't get me wrong. But the fact is, they were grownups. They would surely do stuff I'd disagree with. But at least I would feel pretty confident that they wouldn't make some yyuuuuge consequential decision because some lib insulted their toupee on twitter.) We're gonna see more impulse strikes without Congressional authorization. I just hope none of them are nuclear. But I sure as hell wouldn't be counting on that. Encouraging any of his yyyuuuuuge impulse decisions is bad in principle. ETA: Indeed, cheering Trump on to make this abrupt and unconsidered decision all on his own dime will only ENCOURAGE him to make similar decisions -- including those unconstitutional war actions you deplore. He'll throw troops in, he'll yank 'em out, all with about as much thought as you'd give to squashing a fly. That, IMO, would not be good whoever was in office -- but with Trump, it's particularly dangerous.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2018 21:55:51 GMT -5
For those who think I'm being mean or gloating (probably all of you):
What I am is terrified. I think this is a horrible decision, exactly the kind of thing I feared, and the departure of the grownups is more terrifying yet. And I'm scared because I think it's going to get way, way worse on all fronts, because there aren't gonna be any grownups coming in, not while Trump is president. He has so much power, and so little judgment. I don't think we've begun to see bad, tbh.
And yes, I'm angry, because I think the danger of just exactly this (and far worse) was perfectly obvious from the beginning, inherent in Trump's character, words, actions, and history.
At least the House might now stand up to him and act as something of a check. I just hope it's enough to stave off disaster. But I admit I'm none too sanguine.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2018 23:33:19 GMT -5
Heh. My answer to MichaelW got me hunting down what we all said when the strike happened. Me: On the bombing -- I'm a bit torn. On the one hand, that chemical attack was so very heinous. It is difficult for me not to have an emotional reaction to it and want to see it promptly punished and the fuckers who perpetrated it wiped off the earth. I gather most of our allies are feeling this way, although they are putting it in less emotional terms. And I do favor the U.S. intervening when countries are committing heinous human rights abuses (though I don't generally favor us messing with them in most other situations.). On the other hand (and this is the hand that is winning at the moment): Trump flipped his position on this in what, 24 hours? For years he was all "stay out of Syria! America first! Blah, blah, Rah, rah!" Then in one day, he's dropping bombs? Yeah. I get the emotional reaction, but I want our president to have more restraint and put more consideration into things unless there's a damn good reason he must act on a dime. This is yet another example of what I consider to be his dangerous impulsiveness. And then too -- I'm really disturbed (as I long have been) at the amount of power our president (Trump in particular, but in general) now has to commit acts of war. I want Congress to be consulted. Yeah, they're a bunch of dumbasses, unfortunately, but I don't want something like this to be up to one person. And as we already have learned to our damn sorrow, intervening in the middle east can have consequences that are arguably (or definitely) worse than if we'd stayed the fuck out. We need a game plan. Dumping bombs and leaving -- not a game plan. Finally, it really does bug me that he's so moved by the photos of dead babies that he's dumping bombs -- but at the same time signing executive orders that would prevent living babies from seeking refuge here. I'm crying about the dead babies, too -- but then, I'd welcome the living babies and their families with open arms. I'm sure I'll have more on this. I've been both very busy (as you've probably gathered), plus this is a difficult issue and I want to think about it. This thread is fascinating to read from the beginning.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Dec 23, 2018 0:36:46 GMT -5
And taking all that aside, you aren't actually kidding yourself that Trump is making this decision for carefully considered reasons, are you? Of course not. I'm happily willing to concede that Trump doesn't know jack shit about the Middle East in general or Syria specifically. All the more reason to leave, as I noted earlier.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2018 11:48:00 GMT -5
Jesus. This is insanity.
|
|
|
Post by mikey on Dec 23, 2018 12:05:23 GMT -5
Smart move by Trump to plug up some leaks before they start.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2018 12:50:01 GMT -5
I mean, yeah, because who needs an orderly transition, especially right as yyyyuuggge military actions are being made whose consequences will be felt for decades to come?
And, obviously, a thoughtful, intellectual conservative war hero who has devoted his life to serving his country is a danger to it; it's the guy who makes contradictory decisions on the fly, lies on average ten times a day, tweets batshit stuff all day long, has 17 separate investigations looking into his corrupt dealings, has had a number of aides and allies indicted and/or jailed, meets privately with Putin, alienates our allies, and makes our enemies cheer that we should trust.
|
|
|
Post by mikey on Dec 23, 2018 13:31:02 GMT -5
I think every employer needs to be cautious of disgruntled ex employees. Even to go so far as to attempt not to repeat recent transitory "history".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2018 13:55:08 GMT -5
Many Trump supporters seem to believe that government and government employees are there to serve, not their country and their country's interests, but Trump's. Trump thinks so too, hence his firing anyone who contradicts or thwarts him, or use of terms like "rats" to describe people who testify truthfully.
The odds of Mattis betraying the country he would willingly die for are nil. The odds of him acting out of spite in a way that would damage his country are nil. His entire history demonstrates that.
But the odds that he might, in service to his country, do something that might damage Trump -- yes, that could happen. Here's the bad news for you, Mikey -- booting Mattis out abruptly, while it will certainly ensure infinitely greater chaos and danger for the country, will not do a damn thing to save Trump. He looks worse than ever. And if Mattis feels that to serve his country's interest, he needs to go to Congress or Mueller or yes, the press, he will do it, though he will never do it for any petty reason.
One mistake some Trumpers make is in assuming everyone is as petty, selfish, erratic, and stupid as Trump is. Another is assuming the government exists to serve Trump rather than vice versa. And yet another, apparently, is in thinking that the United States government is just like a mom-and-pop business, and that replacing a Secretary of Defense is just like replacing a cashier in a grocery store.
All I can hope here is that all this makes the smarter conservatives, the ones who are just whistling along for the judges and the tax policy, wake up and realize that maybe, just maybe, Trump is not the best thing for either the country or the Republican party, and maybe, just maybe, something real needs to be done to restrain him besides occasionally tut-tutting at his batshit tweets. Mattis was sending a clear-cut signal, and the fact that he in particular felt he needed to do that should terrify everyone with a grain of sense who gives a damn about this country's interests.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2018 19:35:27 GMT -5
Wonder if Trump gave any thought to this...
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Dec 23, 2018 23:00:18 GMT -5
I mean, yeah, because who needs an orderly transition, especially right as yyyyuuggge military actions are being made whose consequences will be felt for decades to come? Yes. The removal of 2,000 troops from a (mostly) non-combat role is a historical event the likes of which we may never see again. It's practically a modern day Dunkirk. I feel badly for Mattis (not being sarcastic this time). Trump is treating him almost as badly as Obama treated him. I dunno if he (Mattis) is as much of a brilliant mind as some might make him out to be, but he was (I believe) doing the best he could in a difficult position. That said, I agree with Mikey on this. Too much friction between a president and defense secretary can easily lead to more problems. And the main upside that Mattis was supposed to offer--being an actual adult who was capable of thinking things through and who could act as a kind of restraint on Trump's impulsiveness --seemed to me to have always been more (wasted) potential than actual. Some key examples: --Mattis thought leaving the Paris Agreement was a bad move, but Trump did it anyway. --Mattis thought decertifying the Iran deal was a bad move, but Trump did it anyway. --Mattis thought moving the US embassy to Jerusalem was a bad move, but Trump did it anyway. --Mattis thought Trump's policy on transgenders in the military was a bad move, but Trump did it anyway. And now there's Syria, which quite possibly was the straw that broke the camel's back. If Mattis was actually having an influence on Trump's decision-making, then there might be a strong case to be made that his absence is going to really make things worse. But that's not what was happening. The real problem with Trump is that he doesn't know how to listen, doesn't know how to expand his knowledge base because he thinks he already knows everything. Mattis probably recognized that, and eventually he couldn't take it anymore. But I think if I were going to be persuaded that Mattis' departure is some kind of big deal w/ major consequences, I would have to be persuaded that Trump was capable of utilizing Mattis in a way that was going to have some positive effects. If a brick wall has an advisor who drops dead, what's more important: the genius of the advisor, or the fact that the advisee was a brick wall?
|
|